beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the court below acknowledged that a person using an ID computer at the seat No. 183 “C” at the seat No. 183 at the time of the instant case committed a theft with the victim’s shields on the said PC 183, but the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as having proved the facts charged to the extent that the possibility of a person other than the defendant to be a criminal was excluded from reasonable doubt, and sentenced not guilty of the facts charged of the instant case.
However, according to the defendant's statement, the defendant alleged that there was no fact that he added the above details of joining the PC to another person (Article 2:2 of the Investigation Record No. 31), and that the defendant was in another PC called "J" rather than in the above PC which is the place of crime. However, it is evident that the defendant was stolen with the wall of this case, in full view of the following facts: (a) the fact that the defendant was temporarily connected to the PC and the fact that he used the PC for a long time is not verified (Article 2: 43 of the Investigation Records No. 2 of the Investigation Records No. 43); (b) the witness K testified to the effect that "the defendant came to guard with the defendant at the time after the defendant came from the PC "J" from the PC of the court below, and it is difficult to believe it as it is.
Nevertheless, the court below made a judgment of innocence by misunderstanding the above facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
Judgment
A. On September 28, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around 21:40 on September 28, 2018, 2018, at the “C” PC room on the first floor of the building underground in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant: (b) charged the victim D with an unmanned shock machine to play games; and (c) laid off the wall at a chargeer amounting to KRW 36,000 in cash; (d) one national bank card card; (e) one driver’s license; and (e) 60,000 in the market price on which the resident registration certificate is located; and (e) cut off the wall during the locking period.
B. The lower court’s judgment is based on the records.